Received: 28 February 2020

DOI: 10.1049/esi2.12012

REVIEW
- -Revised: 15 January 2021 Accepted: 29 January 2021

- IET Energy Systems Integration

Review of methodologies used for detection of magnetising

inrush and fault conditions in power transformer

Maulik Raichura1 | Nilesh Chothani2 | Dharmesh Patel3

1
Electrical Department, Gujarat Technological
University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
2
Electrical Departments, Adani Institute of
Infrastructure Engineering, Gujarat Technological
University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
3 inrush and Current transformer saturation conditions. As a stagnant and electro‐magnetic
Electrical Department, Government Engineering
College, Bharuch, Gujarat, India
Correspondence
Dharmesh Patel, Electrical Department,
Government Engineering College, Bharuch, Gujarat,
India.
Email: ddeps2005@gmail.com
Funding information
Science and Engineering Research Board, Grant/
Award Number: DST/EMR/2016/006041
Abstract
Reliable and dedicated protection of the transformer is the main requirement in the
power system due to the supervision of a highly expensive equipment transformer. Non‐
linear characteristics of the transformer give mysterious behaviour for the period of
device, a transformer is mainly affected by self‐inrush. The saturation of the core itself is
a very critical situation that becomes a hindrance for fault discrimination. This article
involves the elaboration of the effect of inrush on transformer operation, past research
practices for the discrimination of inrush with the faulty condition, and a definite method
to recognise inrush and fault condition of the transformer. More than 50 reputed journal
articles, various book chapters, and books with research thesis thoroughly studied to
review the inrush and fault discrimination conditions. A comparative analysis is prepared
to suggest the identification of transformer abnormalities. Moreover, a total harmonics
distortion (THD)‐based solution proposed for discrimination of the inrush condition
from fault and other abnormal conditions using the short time Fourier transform tech-
nique. Hardware setup for 2 kVA transformer developed in the laboratory to study
different inrush phenomena and altered fault conditions. Simulation and hardware results
show various effects of inrush and fault with individual harmonic and THD‐based
analysis. The collection of real‐time data is further used based on laboratory hardware
setup to enhance real‐time protection schemes for power transformers.

1 | INTRODUCTION transformer (which requires a lesser amount of copper for

As transformer is the heart of framework of an entire power
system network, the security of the transformer has become a
very hot topic in the HVAC structure. Typically, in 132 kV and
higher range power system, protective patterns desires strong
perspectives like extraordinary speed for fault approval feature
meant for system stability and also considerations of dimin-
ishing damages occur due to faulty conditions [1]. Non‐
linearity in transformer generates magnetising inrush, which
outcomes as inaccurate measuring portion of real magnitudes.
Brownlee [2] and Blume [3] expanded magnetising inrush
current largely with possible effects observed in a power sys-
tem. All through a no‐load state, the transformer energisation
process produces 5 to 10 times transitory current compared to
the esteemed standard current. This continues up to a few‐
cycle, is documented as an inrush current. Toroidal type of
handling same rated power) generates 10 times inrush current
than assessed current during transformer charging.)
Practically, it is extremely hard to keep away from inrush
which incites mal‐activity of protective schemes. Remanent
flux plays a key part in core saturation. According to the
consistent flux linkage proposal [4], because of core saturation,
core flux grows multiple curses as appeared in Figure 1. Even,
core remanence polarity performs a major role to generate
inrush. At primary voltage, zero crossings, under equal polarity
of remanence, extreme severe inrush current is caused in the
main winding.
Figure 1 shows core saturation occurs nearby the ‘knee’
region. Under core saturation situations, the enriched har-
monic current remains present due to a severe drop in winding
inductance. As low impedance appears in differential relay unit,
inrush state is disturbed adversely [5]. Moreover, it is an

-
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. IET Energy Systems Integration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Institution of Engineering and Technology and Tianjin University.

IET Energy Syst. Integr. 2021;3:109–129. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/esi2 109


110
- RAICHURA
important concern of large transformers as winding inductance
is comparatively large for winding resistance (X/R ratio of a
system). Due to this reason, inrush occurs in the power system
for several seconds and hence the system becomes unstable for
that period of time while that period is being a limited one. For
designing of distribution transformer based on the maximum
inrush current, design parameters are clutch out to reduce
losses and improve efficiency [6]. Parameters like voltage, flux,
and current rating play a major role in developing and
designing power transformers and their protective schemes.
Maximum realistic voltage derived as:
dφm
V m siðω t þ θÞ ¼ im Rp þ N p ð1Þ
dt
where
Vm = Max.voltage, ω = angular velocity, im = magnetising
current, Rp = primary resistance, ϕm = instantaneous flux, and
Np= primary turns.
Prompt flux is derived from the following equation:
� −Rp
t simultaneously on a side by transformer. Due to sympathetic
φm ¼ φpmax: cos θ ± φresi: e Lp − φpmax: cosðω t þ θÞ
ð2Þ
where
ϕpmax. = maximum primary flux, θ = angle of Circuit breaker
(CB) Switching, and ϕresi. = residual flux.
Under core saturation, the inductance of winding changes
drastically. Due to unexpected variation of inductance, the time
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 Fundamental representation of
inrush for core characteristics and linkages of flux
constant of the circuit varies melodramatically. Initially, the
decaying rate is also high because of the combined effect of AC
and DC flux.
Note that overload conditions and fault conditions are
not only causing the peak value of current. The peak value of
the current also depends on resonant conditions and the
intervention of harmonics. Even harmonic generation de-
pends on the non‐linear portion of the B‐H curve of the
transformer core.
Magnetic inrush (initial inrush), sympathetic inrush, and
recovery inrush are the main three types for transformer
inrush [7]. Even during disconnected conditions of a trans-
former from the load, remnant flux always remains present in
some amount (i.e. it never completely disappears from the
transformer). Therefore, during the next energisation of the
transformer, a very high initial inrush generates (normally 5 to
10 times full load current depending on switching instant).
Residual flux prediction [8] is based on a core hysteresis loop.
The main cause for sympathetic inrush in the power system is
due to the switching of one of the transformer in parallel
operation. In parallel operation, one transformer experiencethe
initial inrush on its own, but it cause sympathetic inrush
inrush, flux interaction is changing side by the transformer.
Based on substation area information, characteristics of sym-
pathetic inrush is justified [9]. Also, under sympathetic inrush,
the saturation level is gradually reached with opposite polarity
[10]. The third inrush condition known as recovery inrush is
not much harmful as initial inrush and sympathetic inrush.
However, it gives an adverse effect on the variation of power
system parameters. Normally under temporary fault clearance

RAICHURA ET AL.
outside the transformer zone, restoration of the voltage re-
covery is observed. This sudden recovery of voltage leads
inrush in the power system. Normally, inrush current contains
the DC component, noise, and harmonics. The second har-
monic is usually 20 to 50 percentages for fundamentals during
the initial inrush. So, most of the researchers have proposed
identification of inrush condition based on the second har-
monic contents. However, other methods based on total har-
monics distortion (THD) filtration and decomposition may
improve the inrush current identification.
2 | VARIOUS INRUSH DETECTION
TECHNIQUES
Normally, inrush generated in transformers is due to the
energisation of the transformer under no load, voltage re-
covery after removal of external fault, also under characteristic
discrepancy of faulty generator and outfit conditions. Due to
magnetising inrush current, primary and secondary terminal
currents become unbalanced and due to this situation, false
differential currents may rise abruptly. This situation leads the
protective scheme to mal‐operate and to command the trip
signal. To tackle this situation, scholars have offered several
inrush current recognition approaches, which are described
later with advantages and limitations.
2.1 | Challenges to calculate magnetic
inrush in transformer
Inrush current during no‐load energisation condition requires
special attention. Transformer inrush current could be 5 to 10
times FLA (Full‐load current) and a major portion of it is
second harmonic content. For calculation and measurement of
magnetising inrush, many challenges are faced with trans-
former models. Proper representation of saturation behaviour
of core material, the nonlinearity of core material, and its
modelling are some of the major issues for inrush detection.
Even though, all core and winding losses are frequency
dependent, the representation of those losses and estimation of
parameters in the model are also complicated. Co‐existing
magnetic, electric coupling and its data collection to verify
models are also complicated under inrush conditions. The
development of a model with consideration of all the above
terms is a major concern for researchers and its ultimate goal is
to develop an algorithm for correct identification of inrush or
to find novel mitigation techniques. For a better understanding
about inrush detection, some past techniques are described
here which helps in the detection of inrush conditions in po-
wer transformer.
2.2 | Several skills to spot inrush conditions
With the study of many arrangements and study efforts
approved by investigators, magnetising inrush revealing
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
- 111
techniques are mostly separated as six sets with their benefit,
disadvantage, and broad‐spectrum block illustration.
2.2.1 | Harmonics‐based relaying structures (with
containing DC component)
As per Figure 2, the typical decision logic block elaborated
everything including the most of the fundamental harmonics
(inclusion of decaying DC component). To analyse the system,
data fetched in terms of voltage, current, and power from
primary and secondary sides of transformer pre‐arranged to
Analog to digital converter (ADC). Here the process evolved
to get particular frequency signals with the removal of noise
signals with the help of ADC. Captured analogue data changed
to digital terms. After completion of this step, data are sent in
the Harmonic or DC component discrimination portion.
Under this block, signals are analysed based on the harmonics
and DC component containing signals. Other remaining slabs
utilised for stop, to avoid, and to provide a preferred delay for
signal recondition. With the help of the junction point, all
captured data processed through the processor. The intended
value after completion of these processes is compared with a
preset threshold value. Comparator works as a level detector
and generates ‘1’ as a trip signal and ‘0’ as a blocking signal or
health condition of a system. As shown in the figure, a
component can be selected as per the requirement under the
generalised proposed block diagram of the protection.
During the normal process, the transformer core gener-
ates low harmonics. However, when the transformer is
switched on, magnetising inrush current appears in the pic-
ture, and the magnitude of inrush, numerous times greater
compared to normal rated current with ultimately high har-
monic contents. It is because of the magnetic saturation of
transformer cores under no‐load regimes. Magnetic saturation
leads to the non‐linearity of B = f (H) curve and causes the
appearance of higher‐order harmonics. Normally inrush
current contains harmonics and DC components, based on
inception angle and core characteristics. Generally, the
magnitude of the second harmonic is measured as it is pre-
vailing, up to 50% of fundamental current [11]. Based on
residual and saturation flux during energisation condition of
any inductive core, the second harmonic set point is decided
[12] for detection of inrush condition. With the help of
various approaches such as per‐phase, cross blocking,
F I G U R E 2 Block diagram of harmonic and DC component‐based
relaying scheme

112
- RAICHURA
percentage average blocking, and harmonic‐based techniques,
this situation is identified effectively. The second harmonic
component‐based inrush analysis [13] is a susceptible tech-
nique due to its lacking points ‐of mal‐operation under
different inrush and fault environments. Therefore, second‐
order derivative of differential current based techniques [14]
is implemented with validation of various inrush conditions
through a predominant internal fault with inrush conditions.
Even for internal and external fault examination is carried out
based on phasor angle among primary and secondary current
of a transformer. Techniques [13, 14] are validated based on
the Discrete fourier transform (DFT) algorithm by consid-
ering CT saturation conditions. Also, second harmonic
component‐based inrush detection and overall transformer
protection are implemented with adaptively shifting percent-
age bias characteristics by measuring saturation of the current
transformers in [15] with the help of adaptive modified full
cycle DFT (MFCDFT) algorithm. To overcome these limi-
tations of detection scheme based on second harmonic
component of the current, combination of second harmonic
with phasor angle difference between sequential current
component [16] has been implemented to improve the con-
ventional percentage biased differential protection.
As all know, inrush is generated due to the nonlinear
characteristics of the transformer, and nonlinearity is a major
source of harmonics. Total harmonics distortion (THD) based
analysis [17] is widely used in the power system to detect
certain events based on the level of harmonic components.
Intrinsic feature‐based inrush and internal fault discrimination
is given in [5].However, the issue of state equation stiffness
appears with time in the simulation. Most of the harmonic and
DC component‐based analysis used FFT, DFT, and MFCDFT
filtering techniques. However, due to advancements in infil-
tration techniques, Kalman filtering techniques are more
effective than DFT filtering techniques. A modified version of
Kalman filtering techniques is also utilised based on three state
Kalman filtering methods [19]. To avoid the disadvantage of
second harmonic based inrush detections, phasor angle of
voltage and current based inrush detection techniques are
elaborated with considering various fault and abnormal
conditions.
The benefits of the techniques are (1) It is not significantly
embellished by the discrepancy of sampling and (2) Only the
harmonic component (THD) is required to calculate for
discrimination.
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
2.2.2 | Wave‐form investigation grounded
methods
Here, a technique based on waveform singularity factor, self‐
co‐relation, sinusoidal proximity factor, improved co‐relation
factor, current gradient, waveform shape and size investi-
gating methods are incorporated.
As shown in Figure 3, fundamental arrangements are
elaborated based on a simple illustration of altered waveform
response practices in protective schemes. From the primary
and secondary sides of the transformer, the required electrical
parameters are captured for the selected parameter block in
terms of voltage or current. The parameter selection block
selects the required parameter. These selected factors are
processed under AAF (anti‐aliasing filter), SC, and ADC. AAF
will filter a composed signal and re‐condition it via SC block
and again this signal is rehabilitated in digital form through
ADC. A waveform investigation takes place based on the
various parameters like potential gradient, phasor angle dif-
ference, sample derivation, waveform shape and size, wave-
form symmetry and rate of change of magnitude. With the
help of this waveform information, it is compared with the
predefined threshold conditions later. With the help of a
processor, the signal is processed after comparison to decide
on a trip or block through the developed scheme.
Characteristics of waveform under inrush are different for
fault current response. Generally, fault current contains si-
nusoidal fast decaying current wave whereas inrush is having
a peak with the same polarity and decaying with some time
delay. Differential current gradient‐based inrush is identified
in [20], however, the challenging task is to choose a threshold
for each power system case. Phase angle difference based
inrush restraint technique [21] is illustrated without consid-
ering the effect of fault inception angle (FIA), sympathetic
inrush, and recovery inrush. The voltage appearing between
both sides of the transformer during inrush is almost the
same and based on this principle, the inrush condition is
discriminated effectively from other disturbances [22]. In that
article, all other disturbances like an internal, external fault
with and without CT saturation were validated with the help
of adaptively shifted percentage biased characteristics based
on the degree of CT saturation. With the use of features of
the non‐saturation zone in transformer core [23], inrush and
internal fault conditions forms normalised differential current
with only a quarter sample of one cycle. Negative sequence
FIGURE 3 Waveform‐based analysis

RAICHURA ET AL.
current magnitude and positive sequence phasor angle of
primary and secondary current inrush is also utilised to detect
the inrush condition of the transformer in [24]. Also, higher‐
order statistics [25] based inrush detection schemes give
satisfactory results. However, it involves complexity to
implement the scheme in a real field. Ratios of currents and
voltages waveform and predefined thresholds based differ-
ential protection and inrush identification have been per-
formed in [26]. Even, for surveillance of inrush current, the
sine‐wave least‐squares curve (LSC) fitting technique [27] is
used with high reliability and accuracy.
The main disadvantages of waveform‐based analysis are
the limited sample rate, bandwidth, nonlinear phase response,
and instrument errors.
2.2.3 | Classifier and decomposing techniques
Normally under decomposing technique, all transform tech-
niques are similar to and belong to the category of WT
(wavelet transform), WPT (wavelet packet transform), and S‐
Transform whereas, under classifier techniques, NN (neural
network) and vector machine based techniques are involved.
The Figure 4 presents the combined block diagram of classifier
and decomposer techniques with all details.
As shown in Figure 4, parameters like voltage, current,
frequency, power factor, or dissolved gas analyser, are used as
data for primary fill. After the collection of all the data, it was
conditioned and sampled by ADC. After sampling these data,
the analysis is performed based on structural/behavioural/
functional aspects with the help of classifier or decomposing
techniques. With the help of a predefined threshold, value‐
based comparator logical answer generated in the terms of
zero (block) or one (trip).
Decomposition of a waveform, normally subdivided as
structural, behavioural, functional, or combination of any two or
all. Discrete WT‐based on Root mean square (RMS) value for a
specified frequency band of energy gradient is used in [28] to
differentiate inrush with internal faults. However, major draw-
backs of the schemes are mathematical complexity and difficulty
in obtaining parameters. Power spectral density‐based analysis
for faults and inrush with low‐pass decomposition filter (LDF)
and high pass decomposition filters (HDF) to extract signals
that are used in [29]. Also, WPT‐based decomposition tech-
niques are used in [30] to analyse dq‐axis components from
F I G U R E 4 Classifier and decomposing
techniques based analysis
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
- 113
differential current, after it is implemented to validate the al-
gorithm for protection of the transformer. However, very less
test conditions were taken into account. Empirical (EWT) [31],
which is a modified version of WPT, is also used to distinguish
inrush and internal fault conditions in the transformer. More-
over, the resulting features used to train the support vector
machine (SVM) due to WPT's effective feature extraction
property for classification purposes. Yet, a comparison with
recent techniques is not carried out. Inrush current discrimi-
nation using WPT constructed method in transformer differ-
ential protection is described in [32]. However, the selection of
mother wavelet creates major issues. Due to the harshness of
sympathetic inrush in protective schemes, WT‐based sympa-
thetic inrush identification is presented in [33].
Due to the complexity of decomposition techniques, clas-
sifier techniques are becoming the trending topic for the re-
searchers. Artificial neural network (ANN) with Bayesian
classifier (BC) [34] is used for transformer protection to
discriminate various abnormalities like inrush and Current
transformer (CT) saturation. Particle swarm optimization (PSO)
method is used to optimise the constraints for classifier tech-
niques. Still, the error remains higher compared to other tech-
niques. Also, a combination of genetic algorithm (GA) with
ANN [35] is used in transformer protection for classification of
various abnormalities with an internal fault condition of the
transformer. GA is used to improve back‐propagation (BP), to
train the hidden layer, and to increase classification accuracy.
Adaptive approach with ANN and PSO‐based techniques are
elaborated in [36] in a good manner, yet, an operational period of
the suggested configuration is not calculated. Recently, RVM
(relevance vector machine) [37] and HE‐ELM (hierarchical
ensemble extreme learning machine) [38] grounded algorithms
are elaborated by considering all the system and fault parameters
for improving transformer fault classification accuracy. How-
ever, the achieved classification accuracy is high, but a collection
of real‐time training data from the field is a major problem.
Disadvantages of the decomposing and machine learning
techniques collectively elaborated here.
Limitations The limitations are (1) simply reveal extreme
details, so raise convolution; (2) no guarantee regarding the
details considered and relation with each essential section; (3)
simply cause involvement with efficient movement; (4) effi-
cient decomposition is producing disparagement on the pro-
cedure’ and (5) cause problem in a gathering of definite
training data from actual field.

114
- RAICHURA
2.2.4 | Morphological‐based analysis
Here, mathematical morphology (MM), grill factor‐based, and
numerical solution type techniques are included. MM is
soundly defined with various examples in [39]. Here, Figure 5
shows the common block diagram which used MM for
transformer protection purpose. Initially, a mathematical
model is prepared, and then various test cases are used to
validate the mathematical model. The developed mathematical
model is then introduced in the real field. AAF, SC, and ADC
are used to fetch the desired data by signal conditioning and
digital conversion, respectively. Analysis of the collected signal
will be done based on singularity, state‐space formulation,
backward and forward differential value, Eigen value, Eigen-
vector, fractal analysis, or higher‐order statistics. After that, the
analysed data are then compared with the predefined
threshold. A comparator compares the derived quantities with
a threshold. The result of the comparator is then used for
decision‐making purposes. Even for sympathetic inrush, MM‐
based top hat and bottom hat defined with threshold condi-
tions for both flux linkages [40].
Transformer inrush is also discriminated from fault condi-
tions by using MM with the help of morphological gradient
(MG) very effectively with considering sympathetic and recov-
ery inrush in the article [41]. However, variation in data like
varying load, time of operation, FIA is not considered. The
mathematical model after considering various parameters of
transformer, inrush current, and inrush reduction techniques by
controlling initial phasor angle of voltage is elaborated in [42].
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
However, it is a very complicated process in terms of parameter
estimation. Simulated inrush currents by backward differentia-
tion formulae [43] are used with the state‐space formulation.
However, numerical oscillations problem occurs over time.
Further, a sympathetic inrush current is identified through
Eigen value and Eigenvectors based mathematical analysis [10].
Yet, actual implementations are not carried out. Waveform
complexity or fractal study based inrush detection schemes of
the differential current signal is carried out in [44]. Still, wave-
form convolutions of CT saturation under external as well as
internal fault are not tested. Modelling of core saturation in a
power transformer is noticeably elaborated in [45], based on
core flux analysis by conversion of predictable V‐I circuit.
Complexity Normally, modelling of transformer for inrush
is so difficult and offers challenges to designing engineers as all
saturation behaviour should be done properly. Non‐linearity is
complex so all frequency‐dependent losses like eddy current,
hysteresis etc. are complicated to represent in morphological
terms. The restriction is also for determinations of particular
residual flux at the initial scrupulous time. In a multi‐phase
transformer, calculations of coupling flux with its flux are
also a major issue. Estimation of a parameter for measurement
and validation is also difficult.
2.2.5 | Techniques based on power consumption
Block diagram of power consumption grounded analysis pre-
sented in Figure 6 depending on active and reactive power
FIGURE 5 Mathematical morphology‐based
analysis
FIGURE 6 Power consumption‐based analysis

RAICHURA ET AL.
consumption. Here, few techniques are also included such as
frequency–time, active–reactive power, two‐terminal network‐
based technique, equivalent instantaneous leakage inductance
(EILI) based exploration etc. Primarily, from both sides of the
transformer voltages, current and power are measured using
instrument transformers. The measured data are then sent to the
next block where AAF will filter out the required data, the SC
unit will be conditioning the collected data and ADC will
convert the analogue data into digital form. Comparator block
analyses power and other required quantities then compare it
with a preset threshold. Based on the comparison, the processor
decides whether to issue trip (1 trip) command or not (0 block).
Normally, no‐load losses cover hysteresis losses and simple
eddy current losses plus excess eddy current losses given as,
P n0 ¼ P h þ P si−eddy þ P ex−eddy
If the flux is uniformly distributed along the core limb,
then the relation between average magnetisation (M), magnetic
flux, and the electric voltage is,
� �
dM 1 d∅ d∅
¼ ∞
dt 2Ld dt dt
BðtÞ ∞ ∅ ðtÞ ∞ ∫ vðtÞdt
Now as per Bertotti [46] total power consumption with all
three components with magnetic properties and characteristics
is as [47]:
P 0 ¼ W ðM max Þf þ σd ðM max f Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ 8 σGSV 0 ðM max f Þ
2
dB
where P si−eddy ¼ σd dt and
12
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
n0 V 0
P ex−eddy ¼ 1þ 2
2 n0 V 0 dt
So, as per eq:12 ; P h ∞ f ,P si−eddy ∞ f and
P ex−eddy ∞ f
During energisation of the transformer, normally active
power is nearly zero although during energising the trans-
former under an internal fault, huge active power is consumed
by the circuit [48], although during the first cycle of the inrush,
huge amount of active power was disbursed for a few cycles.
After completion of the few cycles, active power is reduced and
the system reaches actual condition, which means active power
is very less and increase in reactive power consumption. But to
make the correct decision, the time taken is too large than the
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
- 115
desired standard time. Discrimination of inrush based on the
instantaneous frequency of differential power signal [49] is
proposed for accurate identification of inrush within a quarter
cycle. These schemes are also compared with various tech-
niques like ANN, WT active power consumption and second
harmonic technique. However, sympathetic inrush, recovery
inrush, and even magnetic inrush followed by the internal fault
are required to be tested. Based on the instantaneous induc-
tance (II) method [50], discrimination of internal faults with
inrush is explained decently. However, the technique used
voltage & current signals which adds voltage transformer cost
and hence increases the overall cost. Differential power signal
based time‐domain analysis [51] is involved to discriminate
inrush in power transformers. Wave shape classification is
used, based on time‐domain and differential power (intrinsic)
ð3Þ features throughout the identification of inrush conditions.
However, the test results are very less. Current intensity and
inductance (L) based analysis to detect inrush is presented in
[52]. However, all conditions are not validated like sympathetic
inrush and recovery inrush with different FIA and other
parameter variations. Sympathetic inrush current with the
impact of load power factor [53] gives results on scale and
period of the main inrush current. Due to the sympathetic
ð4Þ
inrush current, the stifling of the original inrush current of the
adjacent transformer is increased rapidly.
ð5Þ
2.2.6 | Electro‐magnetic stress (during inrush)
based technique
Electro‐magnetic (EM) stress plays a major role in inrush con-
ditions due to magnetic core characteristics. Various uncertainty
π2 2 under EM is also utilised as one of the main parameters for
2
6 transformer protection. Currently, to detect ambiguity, various
logical computational and evidential reasoning methods are
3=2
ð6Þ
offered [54]. Radial electromechanical stresses are also a more
impactful parameter of transformers that are affected by inrush
condition in the transformer [55]. Based on analytical, numerical
and experimental approaches, stress inrush can also be recog-
4σGS dM nised. However, good technical skill is required for the computer
−1 programme due to its complexity. Moreover, CT saturation
conditions are not included. During the inrush current due to
superfluous radial and axial force [56], there is a possibility of a
2
change in transformer structural behaviour. Because there is
numerous possibility of radial and axial deformation under
various condition like inrush, fault, and mechanical defects [57].
1:5
ð7Þ
Even it may also give effects on the performance of unit pro-
tection [58]. Ionosphere current flow relates to geomagnetic
induced current (GIC) due to core saturation in the power
transformer [59].
2.2.7 | Inrush current minimisation practices in
transformers
Inrush is mainly affected by switching angle, remanent flux
amount and polarisation, the resistance of primary winding,
 25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
116
- RAICHURA ET AL.

internal source inductance or impedance, the air‐core induc-

tance of winding, core‐geometry, and its magnetising charac-
teristic of the core material with its maximum flux carrying
capacity etc. Nowadays, due to renewable converter, additional
flux is introduced; so, it may diminish the magnetic flux of
inrush. These techniques of reduced stress are named low
voltage ride through (LVRT) assets [60]. Transient current
limiter (TCL) [61] is used in a power system to suppress any
rapid changes in the current like inrush current and fault
current. Even with the help of controlled switching methods
[62], switching angle is also controlled and consequently, inrush
is controlled. However, appropriate action with determination
and preciseness is required. Connection of inductive load
nearby supply is also one of the techniques to avoid inrush.
Even, amplitude‐based inrush blocking scheme [63], second
harmonic content‐based saturation state detection techniques
etc. are also available.
A Table‐1 has been prepared which gives a comprehensive
review of different techniques and conceptual aspect of study
and growths in the zone of inrush recognition during the past
30 years. This Table‐1 is easier to understand about the work
done by various researchers comprehensively to date with
benefits and disadvantages.
FIGURE 7 Proposed algorithm for inrush detection in transformer

3 | INRUSH DISCRIMINATION FROM

FAULT CONDITION BASED ON THD
As discussed above, various techniques are used to bypass the
protective relay during inrush conditions and should be
capable enough to only operate during fault conditions once
the fault is detected inside the transformer protection zone.
Many researchers have proposed different methods to mini-
mise the effect of inrush current during the initial transformer
energisation state as discussed in Section 2.2.7. However, it is
very difficult to minimise the effect of inrush conditions during
every energisation of the power transformer as the current
magnitude is 5–10 times higher than the normal load current.
Various researchers have proposed various schemes to
discriminate magnetising inrush condition from fault and
normal operating condition of the transformer as discussed in
2.2.1 to 2.2.6. Here, a method is proposed by authors to detect
inrush condition abnormal and fault condition of transformer
estimating THD using short time Fourier transform (STFT)
technique. Software replication is approved in MATLAB and a
laboratory prototype has been developed to capture distur-
bances in the current waveform during various unusual cir-
cumstances taking place inside the power transformer.
Furthermore, a power logger has been equipped to the hard-
ware setup to estimate the magnitude of THD. The aim of the
review paper is to make researchers thoroughly understand the
inrush phenomena taking place inside the power transformer
and summarises the identification scheme proposed by the
authors. The algorithm to detect inrush conditions based on
THD is shown here.
Figure 7 shows the flowchart of the planned protective
scheme of the transformer. Initially, the current signals samples
of all the CTs of both sides of the transformer are attained by
data procurement arrangement. For the modal analysis all
currents, IR, IY, and IB of RYB phases are specified by,
I mod ¼ I R − 2I Y þ 2I B ð8Þ
This model gesture covers all normal, abnormal, and faulty
situations faced in transformer protection [64]. The hardware
waveform along with the magnitude of THD elaborates more
about change in waveform of transformer current during
various abnormalities encountered. If the estimated THD is
more than 30%, the condition is inrush otherwise other
normal of fault is considered.
3.1 | Proposed STFT technique
The STFT is generally considered as a moving window version
of FFT, having improved outcomes in terms of frequency
discrimination associated with wavelets. Moreover, we can
analyse harmonic analysis accurately by STFT under‐voltage
and current disturbances compared to tree filters. The
demonstration of difficult bandpass filter as,
� �
X n ejωk ¼ ∑xðmÞW ðn − mÞe−jωkm ð9Þ
m
An STFT divides an input signal, {x(n)}, into N sections
according to the sliding window, and performs FFT on each
section.
 25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RAICHURA ET AL.
- 117

where ωðnÞ represents the sliding window that emphasises The amplitude of the particular harmonic is obtained as
local frequency components within it. Transformed signal [69, 70]:
is expressed as x(m), xn is essential for representation of
the complexity of the Fourier transform in the term of x(m).w �
Xm 1 1
(n−m), for phasor and magnitude representation based on An ¼ sinðh þ 1Þα þ sinðh − 1Þα
π hþ1 h−1
time and frequency. �α� �
Output of nth band pass filter from STFT: − 2 cos sin nα ð14Þ
h
� � � � � �
ejωk ¼ ejωkm Xn ejωk ¼ hkðnÞ ∗ XðnÞ ð10Þ The maximum quantity of RMS harmonic in power
transformer [71] is given as:
where hkðnÞ ¼ ðejωkm ÞωðnÞ.
In STFT, fundamental magnitude is extracted despite vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
RMS value. One of the remarkable advantages of STFT is u 1 þ P EC
X pu
max ¼t ð15Þ
1 þ K h ∑X∞ X 2
2
due to a bank of the bandpass filter is so that current
1 h
magnitude approximation can realise greater time resolution
than RMS value [65]. To analyse voltage and current analysis
in a power system, STFT is also used for the characterisa- where P EC = eddy current losses, X h = voltage/current har-
tion of the signal's magnitude and phasor [66]. One of the monic, and K h = constant of harmonic.
major advantages of STFT is that it gives the value of Constant of harmonic is derived as:
fundamental magnitude and phase‐angle as well as the
content of the harmonics of the supply [67]. The STFT
∑∞
h¼1 X h h
2 2
filter out all the undesired noise/harmonics and extract only Kh ¼ ð16Þ
the required fundamental quantities and hence one can say X2
that the proposed algorithm works well in conjunction with
the noise signals. Moreover, the safety margins are used A simulation model as displayed in Figure 8 is prepared in
while selecting the thresholds that are used in the proposed PSCAD and the estimation of THD for inrush and fault
methodology and these safety margins avoid undesired conditions are shown here.
tripping of the relay. As seen after Figure 9 the THD during inrush condition in
Total voltage/current appear across the system are a each phase remains more than 30%. Moreover, during an in-
calculation of DC element and innumerable harmonics mag- ternal fault condition, the THD remains less than 30% in all
nitudes like: the phases. Hence, according to the proposed algorithm,
inrush and fault conditions can be discriminated successfully.
Figure 10 shows the current waveform captured during an
XðtÞ ¼ X ðDCÞ þ ∑nh¼1 X hrms cosðhωt þ αh Þ ð11Þ internal fault on PSCAD software. Figure 10(a) elaborates
current waveform with decaying DC components and Figure.
where X = Value of voltage/current, I = number of harmonic, 10(b) shows current without DC decaying components. The
ω = fundamental frequency, and α = phase shift. effect of harmonics in presence of DC decaying component is
RMS value represents covering the square value of har- shown in Figure 10(c) in form of THD. The parameters of
monics plus the sum of the harmonics products [68]. various components of the considered power system network
are given in Appendix‐A.

X rms
h �2 �2 �2 � �2 i1=2
¼ X dc þ X ð1Þ
rms þ X ð2Þ
rms þ X ð3Þ
rms þ …:: þ X ðhÞ
rms

ð12Þ

Commonly, THD is defined as:

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
ffiffiffiffiffi
u 2
u X rms ðhÞ
t
T HDX ¼ ∑h¼2 N
ð13Þ
X1

where h = harmonic number of current, N = total harmonic

number, and Xrms = signal RMS value, and X1 = fundamental
component of the considered signal. FIGURE 8 Model (simulation) for system network

118
- RAICHURA
FIGURE 9 (a) Current waveform and (b) THD during inrush condition
4 | HARDWARE SETUP FOR VARIOUS
RESULT ANALYSIS
The hardware setup for result analysis is as shown in
Figure 11. Two numbers of single‐phase transformers of 2
kVA capacity with 220/110V voltage ratios are connected in
parallel for result analysis. Both transformers are connected
in parallel to make a proper analysis of sympathetic inrush
condition (however in Figure 11 only one transformer is
shown, the other one transformer is connected in parallel
without load). As shown in Figure 11, a 15 A, single‐phase,
lamp load is coupled via S4 switch and circuit breakers are
used as contactors in the circuit. Numerous tappings are
shown on the primary and secondary sides of the considered
transformer to generate various types of faults on windings.
With the help of S1, S2, and S3 switches (fault switches) in-
ternal and external faults are generated. Moreover, with S1
and S2 switches, internal faults are generated on primary and
secondary sequentially. Fault switches are connected via 12 A
and 18‐Ω resistors R1 and R2, to generate real field fault
effect in a laboratory environment as exposed in Figure 11.
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
CTs are connected with rated parameters as exposed in
Figure 11 to evaluate the magnitude and analyse the signals
of the current. Both CTs are connected via current sensors
CS‐1 and CS‐2. IEEE guideline [72] was used to design the
setup of the proposed hardware prototype. Subsequent parts
present the assessable fault and inrush state produced in
laboratory structure.
The front and rear view of the developed hardware
for the practical test is shown in Figure 12. The param-
eters of various components of the developed power
system network of hardware prototype are given in
Appendix‐B.
Installation of the proposed protection scheme for
transformer at site (real network) causes a number of
findings and errors in the implementation. Though, this
scheme is tested in laboratory but even, if the scheme has
been thoroughly tested in the manufacturing factory/com-
pany, wiring to the CTs and relay on site may be incorrectly
carried out, or the CTs may have been incorrectly installed
may affect the operation. Moreover, the hardware used for
implementation of the proposed scheme, method of data

RAICHURA ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 0 Current waveforms: (a) Internal
fault with DC component, (b) internal fault without
DC component, and (c) THD
collection, and other auxiliary protection as applied to power
transformer may affect the commissioning of the relay at
site.
The operating speed of the proposed algorithm depends
on following factors for power transformer protection:
1. Method of data acquisition from both sides of transformer
2. Sampling of data with fixed sampling time
3. Time required for buffering the sample data in memory unit
of hardware
4. Computation of model current
5. Estimation of THD for the calculated model current
6. Time taken by decision logic block
Including all the above factors, maximum response time or
operating speed of the proposed algorithm is 26 ms as tested in
laboratory prototype. Table‐2 shows the number of cases and
data considered in this research work.
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
- 119
4.1 | Main inrush (initial inrush)
Normally, Initial Inrush generated at no‐load transformer
practice due to saturation of the core of a transformer. As
discussed earlier, many parameters affect inrush. Here, two
unidirectional magnetising current conditions like positive
switching angle and negative switching angle verified on
hardware‐based analysis as revealed in Figure 13a,b.
As shown in Figure 13c, second harmonic components are
more than 50 percentages of fundamental components. Even
from the results, we can observe that THD is also more than
50 % (86.270%). Conventional protection schemes utilise
second harmonic component‐based inrush discrimination.
With various methodologies, scholars tried to alleviate the
inrush current with the help of restoring the core material,
controlled inception angle etc. Many other inrush conditions
like sympathetic inrush and recovery inrushes are taking place
in the power system, are designated in the following sections.
 25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
120
- RAICHURA ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 1 Proposed hardware setup. S1 to S4‐switch, A1 to A4‐ammeters, R1 & R2‐12A, 18 ohm variable resistor, CT1‐primary side current transformer,
CT2‐secondary side current transformer, CB1‐primary side circuit breaker, CB2‐secondary side circuit breaker, Id‐differential current, CS‐1 primary side current
sensor, CS‐2 secondary side current sensor

FIGURE 12 Proposed hardware setup prepared in laboratory environment. (a) Panel front view (b) Panel back view

4.2 | Sympathetic inrush 4.3 | Recovery inrush

During parallel operation of a transformer, when the second
transformer under no‐load operation itself faces inrush condi-
tion it generates an effect on the side by transformer also. This
effect on a side by the transformer is called a sympathetic inrush
for the second transformer. Due to the DC factor of sympa-
thetic inrush, the neighbouring transformer may get the wrong
gesture, even though it is not an internal fault for that trans-
former. Hardware‐based result analysis for sympathetic inrush
obtained as shown in Figure 14a. The harmonic spectrum is
shown in Figure 14b. As shown in Figure 14b second harmonic
as well as THD values are higher than the acceptable limit.
Mostly sudden change in voltage takes place during recovery of
fault or any disturbance in the power system. Even during
synchronisation of the power system, voltages are changed
suddenly in the power system in the vicinity of the transformer.
The effects of sudden variation in voltages and even recovery
voltages influence the transformer operation. There are many
reasons for sudden changes in voltages like voltage swings, fault
clearance, momentary trip, and auto reclosing of CB etc. But
the amplitude of these effects are not significant when
compared to initial inrush. However, it might generate an effect
on transformer differential protection. The inrush produced

RAICHURA ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 3 Waveform and harmonic
during inrush. (a) Inrush during positive
rising IA, (b) inrush during negative rising
IA, (c) harmonic during inrush
once voltages recover to an esteemed synchronised voltage
called recovery inrush. When the three‐phase fault clears the
nearby transformer terminal, recovery inrush will be at its peak
at that time. The same effect was observed on hardware as well
when terminal fault cleared on transformer protection and
shows the waveform of recovery inrush as revealed in
Figure 15a and its harmonic spectrum as shown in Figure 15b.
4.4 | Current waveform of magnetising
condition (under no load) with its harmonic
Under no‐load conditions of the transformer, some minor
magnetising current flows additionally than the inrush current.
This is a continuous flow during energisation of the winding.
All windings behave as inductors so they require reactive
power to consume. The waveform of the magnetising current
(as under no‐load conditions) is shown in Figure 16a and
corresponding harmonic spectrum in Figure 16b. The
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
- 121
magnetising current is not an unpolluted sinusoidal waveform,
but somewhat inaccurate due to the nonlinearity of the
transformer core.
4.5 | External fault conditions
During an external fault condition, the outer portion of the
unit type protective zone is called an external fault. During the
time of external faults, equipment consumes additional current
than its normal rated load situation. Due to low fault resis-
tance, the fault current amount is too high. So, much more
stress is produced on the internal part of the equipment. From
Figure 17a this stress can be more understood clearly. Once an
external fault ensues on the system, the current magnitude is
raised quickly. Moreover, the harmonics at that time are lower,
which can be seen from Figure 17b. The reason for the lower
magnitude of harmonics is due to the symmetricity of the
waveform.
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 5 Waveform and harmonic

RAICHURA

during recovery inrush

(a) Sympathetic inrush current waveform and (b) its harmonic
FIGURE 14
-122
 25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RAICHURA ET AL.
- 123

F I G U R E 1 6 Waveform and its

harmonic under no load condition of the
transformer (magnetising Current)

FIGURE 17 Primary and secondary current waveform and its harmonic under external fault

4.6 | Internal fault (without saturation of possible and harmonic spectrum during transformer internal
core) fault state also revealed in the Figure 18b.

The waveform of current during the occurrence of internal

fault condition is illustrated in Figure 18a. The flow of the
current rapidly increases under internal fault. Due to rapid
increase, mechanical as well as electrical stresses are generated
on winding and its insulation. These are the main causes of the
winding failure in the transformer. To avoid this type of
consequence, the protective scheme must be operated as fast as
4.7 | Internal fault (with CT saturation)
There is a rare possibility for the CT saturation to occur due to
the various under internal fault. However, during the excessive
current from the source, the CTs get saturates. Saturated CTs
always deteriorate the form of the current so magnitude is not
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.

current waveform and its harmonics under

F I G U R E 1 8 Primary and secondary
RAICHURA

Primary and secondary current waveform and its harmonics under CT saturation condition with internal fault
internal fault

FIGURE 19
-124
 25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RAICHURA ET AL.
- 125

TABLE 1 Extract of the various schemes that are used for detection of magnetising inrush condition of the transformer

Sr.No. Scheme Benefits Disadvantages References

1 Harmonics based (1) It is not significantly embellished by the discrepancy (1) Under CT saturation conditions there are possibilities [15–22]
relaying of sampling for the generation of harmonics and DC decaying
structures (2) Only harmonic component (THD) is required to components. So, the scheme may be mal‐operated
(with DC calculate for discrimination. It isn't significantly (2) nonlinear load also causes the generation of
component) inflated by the difference in sampling harmonics
(3) A sympathetic inrush also generates harmonics to
the side by the transformer

2 Wave‐form (1) can accurately find the inrush and other conditions, (1) limited sample rate, bandwidth, nonlinear phase [23–30]
investigation as the inrush waveform projects a unique pattern response, and instrument's error
grounded every time (2) limitation— as nowadays some of the fault and other
methods (2) does not require more equipment such as PTs and disturbances follow the same waveform pattern as
directional features etc. the inrush conditions have

3 Decomposing and (1) a trending method as it includes machine learning‐
machine based classification, which is a part of artificial
learning Intelligence
(classifier) (2) research scope is open, one can use other modified
based or improved methods to increase the classification
techniques accuracy
(3) the method is highly accurate, some of the methods
like deep learning do not require a separate feature
extractor, which will ease the work of the protection
engineer
(4) can be modified as required and other features can
be added if requires in the future like detection of
over‐fluxing, high resistance fault detection etc.
(1) Simply reveal extreme details and hence rises [31–41]
convolution
(2) No guarantee concerning the extracted details and
relation with each essential section
(3) Simply cause involvement with efficient movement.
(4) efficient decomposition is producing disparagement
on the procedure
(5) cause problem in the gathering of definite training
data in the actual field
(6) trained staff required

4 Morphological
based analysis
(1) has the unique advantage of grill factor‐based and (1) Normally modelling of transformer for inrush is so [42–48]
numerical solution type techniques which gives ac-
curate results of classification
difficult and offers challenges to designing engineers
as all saturation behaviour should be done properly.
Non‐linearity is complex so all frequency‐dependent
losses like eddy current, hysteresis etc. are complicated
to represent in morphological terms. The restriction is
also for determinations of particular residual flux at
the initial scrupulous time. In a multi‐phase trans-
former, the calculation of coupling flux with its flux is
also a major issue. Estimation of the parameter for
measurement and validation is also difficult.

5 Power (1) based on active, reactive, or apparent power. The (1) requires additional equipment like potential trans- [51–56]
consumption‐ method does not require any direction feature and formers (PTs) which adds the cost of the protective
based has lower computational complexity which is an scheme
techniques: added advantage for this method (2) not capable to detect conditions like over‐fluxing
(2) based on input and output power or percentage techniques unless or otherwise proper algorithm
biased differential power analysis, distinguish inter- has been programmed
nal fault with other abnormalities (like inrush,
external fault etc.) are carried out

6 Electro‐magnetic (1) based on the stress calculation, which converts the (1) due to the complexity of system parameters, the [57–62]
stress stress developed on the core as well as windings to computer programme becomes complex so, it
phenomenon the electrical quantity and measures it. Based on the continuously requires upgradation ability
based calculated stress, it detects the abnormal condition (2) the search coils should be wrapped around the
technique components of the transformer which adds cost to
the protective scheme and completely relying on
those coils

7 Methods to (1) nullifies the effect of the inrush condition by mini- (1) the method requires separate peripheral devices and [63–66]
minimise mising the inrush current and hence the inrush the method remains in operation only while
inrush current condition will not affect the protective scheme of the switching on the transformer. It is not able to pro-
in a transformer tect against certain conditions like sympathetic
transformer inrush or recovery inrush conditions that are taking
place during transformer operation
(2) resolution and preciseness is the main requirement
of switching techniques, so the overall cost of the
system is higher

126
- RAICHURA
TABLE 2 Number of cases and data considered in this work
Sr. No. Faults/Inrush cases Faults/abnormalities
1 All types of internal faults Turn to turn
Primary to secondary winding
Internal winding L‐g fault
2 External faults 110 V side
220 V side
3 Inrush conditions Initial inrush
Sympathetic inrush
Recovery inrush
4 Internal and external fault with CT CT being saturated by changing resistance inserted in
saturation secondary side (RCT)
reflected correctly. Although currently implemented protection
schemes are based on the differential principle, they will
identify the occurrence of the internal fault before CTs get
saturated and isolate the transformer immediately, so it does
not damage the transformer. CT saturation state under internal
fault is elaborated in Figure 19a,b with primary and secondary
current waveform and its THD with harmonic contents
sequentially on hardware.
5 | CONCLUSION
The authors describe literature reviews comprehensively on the
recognition of magnetising inrush current in power trans-
former under various fault conditions. Various methodologies
used for the exposure and sorting of inrush and faults have
been thoroughly evaluated. The techniques based on filtration,
statistical analysis, feature extraction, classification, and deriv-
ative of current signals were conceptualised by the authors with
their application and limitations. Various recognised schemes
like ANN, Fuzzy Logic, GA, and decision tree were utilised by
the researcher for the protection of power transformers.
Moreover, the effectiveness, consistency, and operation time of
these methods are the main concern under the protection of a
power transformer. Here, an STFT filter is used to estimate
THD for discrimination of inrush from other conditions of the
transformer. A simulation validation is provided through
MATLAB software. Moreover, to realise the practical uti-
lisation of the scheme under various inrush and fault condi-
tions on the actual power transformer, a prototype model has
been established under a laboratory environment. Numerous
inrush and other abnormal conditions occurred on the
developed prototype are recorded. The demonstrated results
and waveforms assist readers to comprehend altered inrush
situations and additional deviations of a power system in
depth. The results prove the efficacy of THD‐ based proposed
algorithm to detect the inrush condition of the transformer.
Furthermore, the harmonic analysis and THD measurement
for all inrush and fault circumstances are validated on the
established prototype.
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
Data considered
Location of fault is varied, fault resistance is varied,
Location of fault is varied, fault resistance is varied,
Switching angle/time of circuit breaker is varied
Parallel operation of transformer
Clearance of fault and sudden change in voltage
Various level of CT saturation are considered for
data generation
AC K N OWL E D G E M E N T
The work of authors is financially supported by the Depart-
ment of Science and Technology (DST), SERB India, under
project's reference no. DST/EMR/2016/006,041.
RE F E RE N C ES
1. Bhalja, B., Chothani, N., Maheshwari, R. P.: Protection and Switchgear,
Second. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India (2018)
2. Brownlee, W.R.: Transformer magnetising inrush currents and influence
on system operation. Trans. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng. 63(6), 423–500 (1944).
https://doi.org/10.1109/T‐AIEE.1944.5058951
3. Blume, L.F., et al.: Transformer magnetising inrush currents and influ-
ence on system operation. Trans. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng. 63(6), 366–375
(1944). https://doi.org/10.1109/T‐AIEE.1944.5058946
4. Kulkarni, S.V., Khaparde, S.A.: Transformer engineering: design and
practice. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, NY (2004)
5. Dashti, H., et al.: Discriminating transformer large inrush currents from
fault currents. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst. 75, 74–82 (2016). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.08.025
6. Sobrinho, A.M, et al.: Analysis of the maximum inrush current in
the otimal design of a single phase transformer. IEEE Lat. Am.
Trans. 14(12), 4706–4713 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2016.
7817001
7. Elmore, W.A.: Protective relaying theory and applications, 2nd ed. CRC
Press, Boca Raton (2003)
8. Wang, Y., Liu, Z., Chen, H.: Research on residual flux prediction of the
transformer. IEEE Trans. Magn. 53(6), 1–4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.
1109/TMAG.2017.2664886
9. Peng, F., Gao, H., Liu, Y.: Transformer sympathetic inrush characteristics
and identification based on substation‐area information. IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv. 33(1), 218–228 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.
2017.2730854
10. Rudez, U., Mihalic, R.: Sympathetic inrush current phenomenon with
loaded transformers. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 138(3–10) (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.12.011
11. Warrington, A.R., Van, C.: Protective relays: their theory and practice
Volume one. Springer US: University of Michigan, US (2006)
12. Hamilton, R.: Analysis of transformer inrush current and comparison of
harmonic restraint methods in transformer protection. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl. 49(4), 1890–1899 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2013.
2257155
13. Patel, D.D., Mistry, K.D., Chothani, N.G.: Digital differential pro-
tection of power transformer using DFT algorithm with CT
saturation consideration. In: 2016 National Power Systems Con-
ference, pp. 1–6.(NPSC) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/NPSC.2016.
7858854

RAICHURA ET AL.
14. Patel, D., Chothani, N., Mistry, K.: Discrimination of inrush, internal, and
external fault in power transformer using phasor angle comparison and
biased differential principle. Electr. Power Components Syst. 46(7), 788–
801 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2018.1509915
15. Patel, D.D., et al.: Adaptive algorithm for distribution transformer pro-
tection to improve smart grid stability. Int. J. Emerg. Electr. Power Syst.
19(5), 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijeeps‐2018‐0022
16. Patel, D.D., Mistry, K.D., Chothani, N.G.: A novel approach to trans-
former differential protection using sequence component based algo-
rithm. J. CPRI. 11(3), 517–528 (2015)
17. Jang, S.‐I., Kim, K.‐H.: An islanding detection method for distributed
generations using voltage unbalance and total harmonic distortion of
current. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 19(2), 745–752. https://doi.org/10.
1109/TPWRD.2003.822964
18. Raichura, M.B., et al.: Identification of inrush and fault conditions in
power transformer using harmonic distortion computation. In: 2019
IEEE 1st International Conference on Energy, Systems and Information
Processing, pp. 1–6 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICESIP46348.2019.
8938308
19. Patel, D., et al.: Three state Kalman filter based directional protection of
power transformer. In: 20th National Power Systems Conference, pp. 1–
6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/NPSC.2018.8771716
20. Alencar, R.J.N., Bezerra, U.H., Ferreira, A.M.D.: A method to identify
inrush currents in power transformers protection based on the differ-
ential current gradient. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 111, 78–84 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.02.009
21. Hosny, A., Sood, V.K.: Transformer differential protection with phase
angle difference based inrush restraint. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 115, 57–
64 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.03.027
22. Chothani, N.G., et al.: Real‐time monitoring protection of power trans-
former to enhance smart grid reliability. Electr. Control Commun. Eng.
15(2), 104–112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/EPEC.2018.8598427
23. Sahebi, A., Samet, H.: Efficient method for discrimination between
inrush current and internal faults in power transformers based on the
non‐saturation zone. IET Gener, Transm. Distrib. 11(6), 1486–1493
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐gtd.2016.1086
24. Patel, D.D., Chothani, N.G., Mistry, K.D.: Sequence component of cur-
rents based differential protection of power transformer. In: 12th IEEE
International Conference Electronics, Energy, Environment, Commu-
nication, Computer, Control: (E3‐C3), pp. 1–6 (2015). https://doi.org/
10.1109/INDICON.2015.7443855
25. Zhang, L.L., et al.: Identification of inrush currents in power trans-
formers based on higher‐order statistics. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
146(Supplement C), 161–169 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.
2017.01.029
26. Ali, E., et al.: Power transformer differential protection using current and
voltage ratios. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 154, 140–150 (2018). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.08.026
27. Ahmadi, M., Samet, H., Ghanbari, T.: Discrimination of internal fault
from magnetising inrush current in power transformers based on sine‐
wave least‐squares curve fitting method. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 9(1),
73–84 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐smt.2014.0012
28. de Alencar, R.J.N., Ferreira, A.M.D.: Transformer inrush currents and
internal faults identification in power transformers using wavelet Energy
gradient. J. Control. Autom. Electr. Syst. 27(3), 339–348 (2016). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40313‐016‐0236‐4
29. Youssef, O.A.S.: A wavelet‐based technique for discrimination between
faults and magnetizing inrush currents in transformers. IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv. 18(1), 170–176 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.
2002.803797
30. Aktaibi, A., Rahman, M.A., Razali, A.M.: An experimental implementa-
tion of the $dq$‐Axis wavelet packet transform hybrid technique for
three‐phase power transformer protection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 50(4),
2919–2927 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2013.2292999
31. Maya, P., et al.: Discrimination of internal fault current and inrush current
in a power transformer using empirical wavelet transform. Procedia
Technol. 21, 514–519 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2015.
10.038
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
- 127
32. Abbas, M.F., et al.: Inrush current discrimination in power transformer
differential protection using wavelet packet transform based technique.
In: 2016 IEEE PES Asia‐Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Con-
ference, pp. 944–948 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC.2016.
7779634
33. Marques, J.P., Junior, G.C., De Morais A.P.: New Methodology for
Identification of Sympathetic Inrush for a Power Transformer using
Wavelet Transform. IEEE Latin America Transactions 16(4), 1158–1163
(2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/tla.2018.8362151
34. Yazdani‐Asrami, M., et al.: A novel intelligent protection system for
power transformers considering possible electrical faults, inrush cur-
rent, CT saturation and over‐excitation. Intl. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 64, 1129–1140 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.
08.008
35. Balaga, H., Gupta, N., Vishwakarma, D.N.: GA trained parallel hidden
layered ANN based differential protection of three phase power trans-
former. Intl. J. Electr Power Energy Syst. 67, 286–297 (2015). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.11.028
36. Naghizadeh, R.A., Vahidi, B., Hosseinian, S.H.: An adaptive approach for
simulation of inrush current in three‐phase transformers considering
hysteresis effects. Electr. Power Components Syst. 44(6), 673–682 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2015.1122102
37. Patel, D., et al.: Design and development of fault classification algorithm
based on relevance vector machine for power transformer design and
development of fault classification algorithm based on relevance vector
machine for power transformer. IET Electr. Power Appl. 12(4), 557–565
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐epa.2017.0562
38. Raichura, M.B., Chothani, N.G., Patel, D.D.: Identification of internal
fault against external abnormalities in power transformer using hierar-
chical ensemble extreme learning machine technique. IET Sci. Meas.
Technol. 14(1), 111–121 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐smt.2019.
0102
39. Lin, X., et al.: Electromagnetic transient analysis and Novel protective
relaying techniques for power transformers Wiley‐IEEE Press, New
Jersey, NJ (2015)
40. Zhang, A.Q., et al.: An Identification Method Based on Mathematical
Morphology for Sympathetic Inrush. IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery. 33(1), 12–21 (2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/tpwrd.2016.
2590479
41. Wu, Q., et al.: Using mathematical morphology to discriminate be-
tween internal fault and inrush current of transformers. IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib. 10(1), 73–80 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐gtd.
2015.0216
42. Ning, G., et al.: Analysis and reduction of magnetising inrush current for
switch‐on unloaded transformer. In: 2013 2nd International Symposium
on Instrumentation and Measurement, Sensor Network and Automation
(IMSNA), pp. 1022–1026 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/IMSNA.
2013.6743455
43. Tokić, A., et al.: Simulation of three‐phase transformer inrush currents by
using backward and numerical differentiation formulae. Electr. Power
Syst. Res. 127, 177–185 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.
05.020
44. Hong, C., et al.: Waveform complexity analysis of differential current
signal to detect magnetising inrush in power transformer. In: 2017 9th
International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics
Automation, pp. 120–123 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMTMA.
2017.0037
45. Moradi, A., Madani, S.M.: Technique for inrush current modelling of
power transformers based on core saturation analysis. IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib. 12(10), 2317–2324 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐
gtd.2017.1272
46. Bertotti, G.: Hysteresis in Magnetism : For Physicists, Materials Scientists,
and Engineers. Elsevier, San Diego (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978‐0‐12‐093270‐2.X5048‐X
47. Chiesa, N., Mork, B.A., Hoidalen, H.K.: Transformer model for inrush
current calculations: simulations, measurements and sensitivity analysis.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 25(4), 2599–2608 (2010). https://doi.org/10.
1109/TPWRD.2010.2045518

128
- RAICHURA
48. Yabe, K.: Power differential method for discrimination between
fault and magnetizing inrush current in transformers. IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv. 12(3), 1109–1118 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1109/61.
636909
49. Hooshyar, A., et al.: A new algorithm to identify magnetising inrush
conditions based on instantaneous frequency of differential power signal.
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 25(4), 2223–2233 (2010). https://doi.org/10.
1109/TPWRD.2010.2040844
50. Abniki, H., et al.: A novel inductance‐based technique for discrimination
of internal faults from magnetizing inrush currents in power trans-
formers. In: Modern electric power systems, pp. 1–6 (2010)
51. Hooshyar, A., et al.: Time‐domain analysis of differential power signal to
detect magnetising inrush in power transformers. IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv. 27(3), 1394–1404 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2012.
2197869
52. Cazacu, E., Petrescu, L.: Magnetising inrush current of low‐voltage iron
core three phase power reactors. In: 2014 16th International Conference
on Harmonics and Quality of Power, pp. 843–847 (2014). https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICHQP.2014.6842874
53. Moradi, A., Madani, S.M., Sadeghi, R.: Impact of load power factor on
sympathetic inrush current. In: 2016 24th Iranian Conference on Elec-
trical Engineering, pp. 1416–1421 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/
IranianCEE.2016.7585743
54. Tang, W.H., Wu, Q.H.: Condition monitoring and assessment of power
transformers using computational intelligence, 1st ed. Springer‐Verlag
London Limited, London (2011).
55. Guimarães, R., et al.: Electromechanical forces in transformers caused by
inrush currents: an analytical, numerical and experimental approach. J.
Control. Autom. Electr. Syst. 24(6), 863–872 (2013). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40313‐013‐0068‐4
56. Fonseca, W.S., et al.: Analysis of structural behaviour of transformer's
winding under inrush current conditions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 54(3),
2285–2294 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2018.2808273
57. Bagheri, S., Moravej, Z., Gharehpetian, G. B.: Classification and
discrimination among winding mechanical defects, internal and external
electrical faults, and inrush current of transformer. In IEEE Trans. Ind.
Inform. 14(2), 484–493 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2017.
2720691
58. Bagheri, S., Moravej, Z., Gharehpetian, G.B.: Effect of transformer
winding mechanical defects, internal and external electrical faults and
inrush currents on performance of differential protection. IET Gener,
Transm. Distrib. 11(10), 2508–2520 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐
gtd.2016.1239
59. Ramírez‐Niño, J., et al.: Core saturation effects of geomagnetic induced
currents in power transformers. J. Appl. Res. Technol. 14(2), 87–92
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jart.2016.04.003
60. Chen, H.C., Wu, P.H., Cheng, P.T.: A transformer inrush reduction
technique for low‐voltage ride‐through operation of renewable con-
verters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 52(3), 2467–2474 (2016). https://doi.
org/10.1109/TIA.2016.2533497
25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
61. Amiri, P., Akhbari, M.: Transient current limiter for suppressing trans-
former inrush, motor starting and fault currents in power system. IET
Electr. Power Appl. 11(3), 423–433 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐
epa.2016.0190
62. Cano‐González, R., et al.: Controlled switching strategies for trans-
former inrush current reduction: a comparative study. Electr. Power
Syst. Res. 145(–18), 12 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2016.
11.018
63. Balamurugan saravaran, A.R.: Inrush blocking scheme in transformer
differential protection. Energy Procedia. 117, 1165–1171 (2017)
64. Chothani, N.G., Bhalja, B.R., Parikh, U.B.: Development of a new bus
zone identification algorithm using support vector machine. IET Gener,
Transm. Distrib. 6(7), 710–718 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet‐gtd.
2011.0459
65. Bollen, M.H., Gu, I.Y. Signal processing of power Quality disturbances.
Wiley‐IEEE Press, New Jersey (2006)
66. Gu, Y., Bollen, M.H.J.: Time‐frequency and time‐scale domain analysis of
voltage disturbances. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 15(4), 1279–1284 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.1109/61.891515
67. Pérez, E., Barros, J.: Voltage event detection and characterization
methods: a comparative study (IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution
Conference and Exposition: Latin America, Caracas, Venezuela (2006).
https://doi.org/10.1109/TDCLA.2006.311552
68. Chiesa, N., Hoidalen, H.K.: Analytical algorithm for the calculation of
magnetization and loss curves of delta‐connected transformers. IEEE
Trans. Power. Deliv. 25(3), 1620–1628 (Jul. 2010). https://doi.org/10.
1109/TPWRD.2010.2045771
69. Horowitz, S.H., Phadke, A G.: Power System Relaying, 3rd ed. John
Wiley & Sons Ltd,, United Kingdom (2008)
70. Wu, Q.H., Lu, Z., Ji, T.Y.: Protective relaying of power systems using
mathematical morphology, 1. Springer‐Verlag London, London (2009)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐84882‐499‐7
71. Masoum, M.A.S., Fuchs, E.F.: Chapter 2 ‐ harmonic models of trans-
formers. In: Masoum, M. A. S., Fuchs, E. F. (eds.) Power quality in power
systems and electrical machines, 2nd ed., pp. 105–205.Academic Press,
Boston (2015)
72. IEEE Guide for Protecting Power Transformers (Revision of IEEE Std
C37.91‐2000). IEEE Power Engineering Society Sponsored by the Power
System Relaying Committee, New York (2008). https://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/servlet/opac?punumber=4534868
How to cite this article: Raichura M, Chothani N,
Patel D. Review of methodologies used for detection of
magnetising inrush and fault conditions in power
transformer. IET Energy Syst. Integr. 2021;3:109–129.
https://doi.org/10.1049/esi2.12012
 25168401, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/esi2.12012 by Iraq Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [04/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
RAICHURA ET AL.
- 129

APPEN DIX A A PP E N D I X B

Sr. No. Parameter Values Transformer Data: 2 KVA, 220/110 V, 1‐Phase, 50‐Hz, %Z = 12
Three‐phase voltage source‐1 CT data Primary side: 10/5A, 15VA, 5p10 and for secondary
side 20/5 A, 15VA, 5p10
1 Normal power 100 MVA
Load Lamp load, 25A
2 Phase to phase RMS voltage 400 kV
Source data primary 1‐phase, 0–300 V, 50‐Hz, variable supply from
3 Frequency 50 Hz
side electricity board
4 Phase angle 0°
Source data 1‐phase, 0–150 V, 50‐Hz, variable supply from AC
5 +ve sequence impedance 0.5 Ω with 850 secondary side Variac, electricity board

6 Zero sequence impedance 1 Ω with 850

Three phase transformer parameter
1 Normal power 100 MVA
2 Frequency 50
3 Leakage reactance (changed) 0.1 to 0.0001 pu
4 Magnetising current 0.4%
5 Voltage (primary/secondary) 400/220 kV
6 Saturation placing on winding First (primary)

7 Knee voltage 1.25 pu

CTp = 150/5 A and CTs = 300/5 A